Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 06 Feb 2012 (Monday) 06:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD Announced!!! Stabilized 24-70!

 
Kechar
Goldmember
Avatar
1,699 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
     
May 02, 2012 11:07 |  #1261

So yesterday I was playing around with out of focus highlights.
I'm sure the nay-sayers will jump all over this, but it is fact and it is what came out of my camera and lens.

I'm not an optical engineer or even close, but I think this pattern is caused by the number of elements in the lens, and I don't see how any high count multi-element lens can avoid this. Just my thought. Also...I further speculate that any in-lens correction of this could only degrade final IQ produced by the lens. That's my story and i'm sticking to it.

PS: personally, this doesn't bother me one bit...if it bothers you then don't by or return the lens!

Shot in the day at f5 and just manually placed as far out of focus as I could get.

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7246/7135873585_c1e1372dc6_b_d.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8147/6989790608_35898258e2_b_d.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7213/6989790646_a0e2a71fa9_b_d.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7075/7135873973_41f6bbc1e9_b_d.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7066/7135874109_7bc1674e01_b_d.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7079/6989791098_45e94dcd4d_b_d.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7059/6989791164_510bbd9deb_b_d.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8152/6989791290_8a94f659e0_b_d.jpg

flickr (external link) KCharron.net (external link) - 5D mark III (gripped) | 24-70 2.8 VC | 85 1.8 | 50 1.4 | 70-200 2.8L
[LIGHTING: 3 Einsteins, AB400, CyberCommander, 2 VLMs w/2 spare bats, 2 64" PLMs, 24x32 softbox, 22" BD, grids and diffusers, Avenger stands and boom.]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mattmorgan44
Senior Member
644 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
     
May 02, 2012 11:27 |  #1262

Kechar wrote in post #14366696 (external link)
So yesterday I was playing around with out of focus highlights.
I'm sure the nay-sayers will jump all over this, but it is fact and it is what came out of my camera and lens.

Wow!

I don't know that the onion bokeh would bother me too much for most shots, but you certainly demonstrated how significant the onioning is in the right circumstances.

The stand alone bokeh balls with onioning don't bother me at all, but when many bokeh balls cover the same area of the frame, layering over each other, that's when I would have a problem with it. I saw an example of this a few pages back and the OOF area was uncomfortable for me to look at for that reason. However I don't think it would be common enough to be a deciding factor in purchasing the lens.


5D Mark II | 7D
24L II | 50L | 100L Macro
Some other stuff
Can't find a Lee filter holder? - Cokin Modification for wide angle lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kechar
Goldmember
Avatar
1,699 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
     
May 02, 2012 11:33 |  #1263

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14366807 (external link)
Wow!

I don't know that the onion bokeh would bother me too much for most shots, but you certainly demonstrated how significant the onioning is in the right circumstances.

The stand alone bokeh balls with onioning don't bother me at all, but when many bokeh balls cover the same area of the frame, layering over each other, that's when I would have a problem with it. I saw an example of this a few pages back and the OOF area was uncomfortable for me to look at for that reason. However I don't think it would be common enough to be a deciding factor in purchasing the lens.


Well the truth is...it's there whether we want to admit it or not.
It won't bother me though.
I Googled "night bokeh" and saw an awful lot of a absolutely beautiful portraits that had gorgeous bokeh with onioning in the balls. I have primes if I really get concerned anyways.


flickr (external link) KCharron.net (external link) - 5D mark III (gripped) | 24-70 2.8 VC | 85 1.8 | 50 1.4 | 70-200 2.8L
[LIGHTING: 3 Einsteins, AB400, CyberCommander, 2 VLMs w/2 spare bats, 2 64" PLMs, 24x32 softbox, 22" BD, grids and diffusers, Avenger stands and boom.]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattmorgan44
Senior Member
644 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
     
May 02, 2012 11:48 |  #1264

pyrojim wrote in post #14364855 (external link)
My my my how fast we forget the heritage of a lens.

The 24-105 is based (in focal length and aperture on principle) on the FD 35-105 F3.5.

Now when you say 36 something millimeters is not wide enough for most people? Is that because YOU have grown accustomed to fast AND generously wide standard zoom lenses?

You have a good point. Yes I am probably accustomed to the current lenses offered from Canon. However, it doesn't change the fact that the 17-55mm lens on a crop body is much more useful as a general purpose lens to most people. If you are asking if I am alone in my thinking I am definitely not. I have read countless posts with people saying they would not use the 24-105 as a general purpose lens on a crop body. They may all be accustomed to the new, wider zooms available, but that shouldn't really determine which lens they should choose.

I do not know what lenses were offered by Canon in the FD days. However, if what you say is true, I assume people either a) needed to buy a seperate lens for what today is considered wide enough for a general purpose lens by most people. Or b) People were so used to 35mm being 'wide' that the 35-105 was satisfactory as a general purpose zoom. I believe that is your point. But that is no longer the case. Multiple lenses exist for crop bodies (17-55, 15-85, many non-Canon lenses) and full frame bodies (24-70, 24-105, 17-40, more and many non-Canon lenses) so a comprimise is no longer neccessary. And it is a compromise. No photographer would pass up the extra 11mm at the wide end, all other things being equal. What was standard in the past is no longer the only option. And it doesn't change the fact that a 17-55mm lens on a crop body will be more useful as a general purpose zoom to most people than a 24-70 (How this debate came about). The compromise is no longer needed. People I'm sure are now accustomed to the wider zooms available, but as technology progresses there is no reason to base decisions on what was standard in the FD days.


5D Mark II | 7D
24L II | 50L | 100L Macro
Some other stuff
Can't find a Lee filter holder? - Cokin Modification for wide angle lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
arentol
Goldmember
1,305 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Seattle WA
     
May 02, 2012 11:52 |  #1265

Kechar wrote in post #14366852 (external link)
Well the truth is...it's there whether we want to admit it or not.
It won't bother me though.
I Googled "night bokeh" and saw an awful lot of a absolutely beautiful portraits that had gorgeous bokeh with onioning in the balls. I have primes if I really get concerned anyways.

Wow. Just googled that too. Looks like this is far from the only lens with onion bokeh and that many people are quite proud of their shots in spite of some onion bokeh.

As stated before I am not concerned about it either. It rarely appears and when it does I can deal with it in post, a/o I can just shoot with primes if it is a truly important shoot, which I don't really do.


5D3 | Rokinon 14 f/2.8 | 16-35L II | TS-E 24L | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | Voigtlander 40 f/2.0 | Σ 50 f/1.4 | MP-E 65 | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Σ 85 f/1.4 | Zeiss 100 f/2 | Σ 120-300 f/2.8 OS | 580 EX II | 430 EX II | Fuji X10 | OM-D E-M5 | http://www.mikehjphoto​.com/ (external link)
*****Lenses For Sale (external link)*****

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattmorgan44
Senior Member
644 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
     
May 02, 2012 11:54 |  #1266

Kechar wrote in post #14366852 (external link)
Well the truth is...it's there whether we want to admit it or not.
It won't bother me though.
I Googled "night bokeh" and saw an awful lot of a absolutely beautiful portraits that had gorgeous bokeh with onioning in the balls. I have primes if I really get concerned anyways.

I don't think it will bother me either. But I wouldn't like to use my primes as back-up as an excuse for the lens. I was hoping this lens would be similar to Canons 24-70, but slightly smaller, lighter and with VC. I would thought with the price of the Tamron and advances in technology, this wasn't an unreasonable expectation. So far, the vignetting and possibly the bokeh are a little dis-heartening. Sure I have my primes to fall back on, but that's not really the point of this general purpose lens. I would have hoped for an exceptional lens with its downside being a max f/2.8, with primes being relied on for much wider apertures up to f/1.2, and unsurpassed image quality. Of course we have seen relatively few examples so far so I will do my own testing when the lens arrives.


5D Mark II | 7D
24L II | 50L | 100L Macro
Some other stuff
Can't find a Lee filter holder? - Cokin Modification for wide angle lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,224 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5312
Joined Sep 2007
     
May 02, 2012 12:11 |  #1267

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14366964 (external link)
I don't think it will bother me either. But I wouldn't like to use my primes as back-up as an excuse for the lens. I was hoping this lens would be similar to Canons 24-70, but slightly smaller, lighter and with VC. I would thought with the price of the Tamron and advances in technology, this wasn't an unreasonable expectation. So far, the vignetting and possibly the bokeh are a little dis-heartening. Sure I have my primes to fall back on, but that's not really the point of this general purpose lens. I would have hoped for an exceptional lens with its downside being a max f/2.8, with primes being relied on for much wider apertures up to f/1.2, and unsurpassed image quality. Of course we have seen relatively few examples so far so I will do my own testing when the lens arrives.

the vignetting is just an extra step to the workflow, but as easy to fix as white balance.

I havent done much testing other than FoCal, which shows 0 MFA @70mm :)

Handling wise, it's good. Definitely feel the difference between this and the brick. The build quality is similar to L quality IMO.


Sony A7rii/A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DStanic
Cream of the Crop
6,148 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Canada
     
May 02, 2012 12:27 |  #1268

The vignetting shouldn't be a big deal in Lightroom if you use auto lens correction (once there is a profile for this lens available, or you could create your own.) so really it's not something I'm worried about. I'm sure adding VC makes for some sort of compromise with IQ, just like with their 17-50 VC 2.8 lens.

At least this lens doesn't appear to have bad distortion at the wide end like the 24-105L.


Sony A6000, 16-50PZ, 55-210, 35mm 1.8 OSS
Canon 60D, 30D
Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 17-35, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 85mm 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sunthing ­ Productions
Member
71 posts
Joined Mar 2012
     
May 02, 2012 12:34 |  #1269

This is a follow-up to my last post, this time with results from the brick as well. Same settings on both lenses as before: 1/25, F2.8, ISO400, and equivalent FLs:

Tamron 24-70:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com/albums/v314/Xcell​ere/bath.png (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


The brick:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …s/v314/Xcellere​/bath2.png (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kechar
Goldmember
Avatar
1,699 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
     
May 02, 2012 12:41 |  #1270

Sunthing Productions wrote in post #14367167 (external link)
This is a follow-up to my last post, this time with results from the brick as well. Same settings on both lenses as before: 1/25, F2.8, ISO400, and equivalent FLs:

Is there and exposure difference there?


flickr (external link) KCharron.net (external link) - 5D mark III (gripped) | 24-70 2.8 VC | 85 1.8 | 50 1.4 | 70-200 2.8L
[LIGHTING: 3 Einsteins, AB400, CyberCommander, 2 VLMs w/2 spare bats, 2 64" PLMs, 24x32 softbox, 22" BD, grids and diffusers, Avenger stands and boom.]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sunthing ­ Productions
Member
71 posts
Joined Mar 2012
     
May 02, 2012 12:46 |  #1271

Kechar wrote in post #14367208 (external link)
Is there and exposure difference there?

Both sets were 1/25.


Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thatkatmat
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,340 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 194
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, don't move here, it's wet and cold
     
May 02, 2012 13:50 |  #1272

Thanks for all the tests......How about some flowery garden shots showing off this new Tammy's bokeh....I've seen the onions, now can we see some daytime smooth BG blur with sharp centers to tantalize our separation anxiety??


My Flickr (external link)
Stuff
"Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut." -Jimmy Conway
a9, 12-24/4G, 24-70/2.8GM, 100-400GM, 25/2 Batis, 55/1.8ZA, 85 /1.8FE, 85LmkII, 135L...a6300,10-18/4, 16-50PZ, 18-105PZ

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Vixen89
Goldmember
Avatar
4,514 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Aug 2010
Location: D-Town, TX
     
May 02, 2012 13:52 |  #1273

Thanks for showing the onion bokeh finally...I'm not sure I want to add a few more steps in to just fix that onion effect it's showing. Other than that, everything looks really damn nice..

Argh you Canon and your 24-70 with no IS!!


I'm actively lazy!! :D | Gear List | photovxn.com (under construction)external link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
misty66
Goldmember
Avatar
3,916 posts
Likes: 2047
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Netherlands
     
May 02, 2012 14:46 |  #1274

Just go to the gym and you don't need IS Lisa.....:-).


Please call me Sandra
flickr (external link)
My girls (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Vixen89
Goldmember
Avatar
4,514 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Aug 2010
Location: D-Town, TX
     
May 02, 2012 14:59 |  #1275

misty66 wrote in post #14367864 (external link)
Just go to the gym and you don't need IS Lisa.....:-).

nah I'm buff now from holding the 70-200 II alll month. yar..I'm debating between the old brick and this now but old brick wasn't mostly sharp at 2.8 ~


I'm actively lazy!! :D | Gear List | photovxn.com (under construction)external link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

394,151 views & 0 likes for this thread
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 Di VC USD Announced!!! Stabilized 24-70!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ElizaCawker
723 guests, 350 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.